 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| David v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7652, No. 4336,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of a five-year sentence following appellant's conviction for burglary was not excessive.
|
|||||
| Fitzgerald v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals No. A-7406, No. 4329,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a vehicle tampering case, the trial court issued an illegal sentence in excess of the six-month maximum.
|
|||||
| Frank v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7375, No. 4328,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not err in dismissing as untimely appellant's application for post-conviction relief; almost all of the issues raised were an attempt to relitigate issue appellant unsuccessfully raised in his direct appeal.
|
|||||
| Gail v. Tobin, Court of Appeals No. A-7574, No. 4333,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's composite sentence of 40 years with 10 years suspended for murder in the second degree and assault in the third degree was not excessive.
|
|||||
| Hargrave v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals No. A-7189, No. 4340,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant could not be convicted for exercising his constitutionally protected right to refuse police admission to his residence because they had no warrant.
|
|||||
| Lewandowski v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7578, No. 4331,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's rejection of appellant's proffered mitigating sentence factor was proper; while a pellet gun used by appellant was inoperable, an accomplice was armed with two knives, and appellant and his accomplice planned the robbery.
|
|||||
| Mute v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7397, No. 4338,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applicant did not overcome presumption in either postconviction relief application or in affidavits he submitted in regard to his application that his trial counsel acted competently and made decisions guided by sound tactical considerations.
|
|||||
| Norris v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7601, No. 4334,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's failures on probation were sufficient to justify the trial court's imposition of a sentence of three years' imprisonment.
|
|||||
| Samskar v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7186, No. 4339,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State failed to prove the intoxication element of fourth-degree weapons misconduct but a jury could have found defendant's actions of firing a gun in a trailer park amounted to assault and reckless endangerment.
|
|||||
| Schouten v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals No. A-7606, No. 4335,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police had reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity and contact appellant. It was permissible, after noticing evidence of intoxication, to shift the contact's focus to determine whether appellant was driving while intoxicated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
